PFT: If Seymour doesn't report, Raiders will want their pick back

[Ring 6]

I could see the league reversing this trade and making sure future trade rules are adopted in the future CBA or NFL bylaws.

The argument being made here is that the Raiders may try to take the avenue of not being able to perform a physical, which is tantamount to any trade being final.

Look at it this way. If we send our first to Carolina for Peppers, and he never shows and sits home....do you think the Patriots are just going to sit him for the year and try to get some bonus money out of him? Or do you think they get a legal team down to the NFL offices saying "Hey, we have no approved physical, trade never finalized"?

There is no history of this situation that the league ever needed to rule on. Plummer was different because he retired.

You are ignoring the fact that the Raiduhs could have made speaking to Seymour a condition of the trade. The precedent that would be set by upholding the trade if Seymour does not report is that teams need to be smart when trading.
The precedent set by voiding it is that no player would ever have to be traded to any team he doesnt want to be. All he would have to do is announce that he has no intention of reporting, and we have established the precedent that the team can fake a failed physical to ovecome that.

I think look before you leap is a better rule than players get to pick their trades.

 

[pao]

The precedent set by voiding it is that no player would ever have to be traded to any team he doesnt want to be. All he would have to do is announce that he has no intention of reporting, and we have established the precedent that the team can fake a failed physical to ovecome that.

But this only works IF the team he is going to doesn't want him. The team the player is going to, in this case the Raiders, has control of the physical. If they really want the player, why would they fail the player unless he really had a physical problem? Answer, they won't.

 

[shmessy]

But this only works IF the team he is going to doesn't want him. The team the player is going to, in this case the Raiders, has control of the physical. If they really want the player, why would they fail the player unless he really had a physical problem? Answer, they won't.

Depends if the Palace Coup for reasons of senility are completed against Mr. Davis by his horrified partners by that time.

 

[pao]

Depends if the Palace Coup for reasons of senility are completed against Mr. Davis by his horrified partners by that time.

Sadly, it is long overdue.

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

You are ignoring the fact that the Raiduhs could have made speaking to Seymour a condition of the trade. The precedent that would be set by upholding the trade if Seymour does not report is that teams need to be smart when trading.
The precedent set by voiding it is that no player would ever have to be traded to any team he doesnt want to be. All he would have to do is announce that he has no intention of reporting, and we have established the precedent that the team can fake a failed physical to ovecome that.

I think look before you leap is a better rule than players get to pick their trades.

I am not sure where you're going here. I am not giving validity as "fact" on a speculation of what the trade agreement wording "may or may not" be?

My argument has been that if Seymour fails to show, or if they sour by the time it takes for him to show, they may try a couple avenues to attempt voiding the deal. First being a claim that a physical was never performed, so historical precedence is no trade was finalized. The other being that they claim he fails their physical requirements. There have been several articles that support those arguments regarding the "physical" angles. Teams have not been required in the past to say why they failed the player, and each team has their own views and criteria for the testing.

Now, all of that assumes the Raiders make a move to get their pick back at some point.

I do not think the league would suddenly rule, since historically it has never been that way, that on this particular trade the Raiders HAVE to accept a third party medical opinion, or HAVE to accept a player that they cannot even give a physical to. The league may not do an outright reversal, they may look for other creative means of remedy as they have done in the past.

I do think if this gets to that point, they will make sure something is written into the bylaws or the next CBA that covers this situation.

Finally, I think Al Davis and the Raider Organization will not try to rescind the deal. Davis has a history of willingness to make life miserable for those he perceives as having wronged him. As well with the fact he is not prone to admitting errors. If Seymour never shows I could see Davis ending his season, filing a grievance to get a portion of his option bonuses, and making Seymours life a living hell.

 

[Wolfpack]

This is all speculation as I cannot think of any precedent, but it seems that if Seymour never shows up then the trade is not official because there has been no physical.

At this point, I think the Commissioner would give the Raiders the option to take their pick back or keep Seymour's contract. I really don't think the Commissioner would force Oakland to lose the pick for a player that never showed (unless they were willing to do that).

Then Seymour takes the year off, and remains beholden to his contract next year.

 

[TheKraftyOne]

The Raiders have already placed him on the Reserve Left Squad list:

NFL Network’s Michael Lombardi reports Richard Seymour was placed on the Raiders’ reserve-left squad list Friday.

The move indicates that the Raider consider Seymour part of their organization, essentially acknowledging that the trade with New England is official, and that Seymour has left the team without permission.

The Raiders sent a 2011 first-round pick to the Patriots for Seymour on Sept. 6, but the veteran defensive tackle has yet to report to Oakland..

 

[pao]

I am not sure where you're going here. I am not giving validity as "fact" on a speculation of what the trade agreement wording "may or may not" be?

My argument has been that if Seymour fails to show, or if they sour by the time it takes for him to show, they may try a couple avenues to attempt voiding the deal. First being a claim that a physical was never performed, so historical precedence is no trade was finalized. The other being that they claim he fails their physical requirements. There have been several articles that support those arguments regarding the "physical" angles. Teams have not been required in the past to say why they failed the player, and each team has their own views and criteria for the testing.

Now, all of that assumes the Raiders make a move to get their pick back at some point.

I do not think the league would suddenly rule, since historically it has never been that way, that on this particular trade the Raiders HAVE to accept a third party medical opinion, or HAVE to accept a player that they cannot even give a physical to. The league may not do an outright reversal, they may look for other creative means of remedy as they have done in the past.

I do think if this gets to that point, they will make sure something is written into the bylaws or the next CBA that covers this situation.

Finally, I think Al Davis and the Raider Organization will not try to rescind the deal. Davis has a history of willingness to make life miserable for those he perceives as having wronged him. As well with the fact he is not prone to admitting errors. If Seymour never shows I could see Davis ending his season, filing a grievance to get a portion of his option bonuses, and making Seymours life a living hell.

Excellent post.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

I haven't read through the posts in this thread, so maybe someone else said the same thing:

PFT is Captain Obvious with such a headline. Of COURSE the Raiders will *want* their pick back. Duh!

Good luck getting it, though.

Regards,
Chris

 

[Wolfpack]

I haven't read through the posts in this thread, so maybe someone else said the same thing:

PFT is Captain Obvious with such a headline. Of COURSE the Raiders will *want* their pick back. Duh!

Not necessarily. Even if he doesn't show, they may be happy keeping his contract anyway. In fact, if you believe the reports that the Raiders sent the 5-day letter, then it seems that may very well be the case.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Not necessarily. Even if he doesn't show, they may be happy keeping his contract anyway. In fact, if you believe the reports that the Raiders sent the 5-day letter, then it seems that may very well be the case.

I doubt they sent the letter for that reason. I think it has more to do with asserting what leverage they have in an otherwise crappy situation that they'd love to undo.

Regards,
Chris

 

[mgteich]

We should know a lot more Tuesday night, Wednesday at the lates. After all he was served on Thursday.

Excellent post.

 

[Jackson 2]

But this only works IF the team he is going to doesn't want him. The team the player is going to, in this case the Raiders, has control of the physical. If they really want the player, why would they fail the player unless he really had a physical problem? Answer, they won't.

I have to ask: why do you care about any of this?

 

[pao]

I have to ask: why do you care about any of this?

I think it is very interesting. It also affects the Chargers. It weakens the Patriots this year and the Raiders in '11 and beyond IF the trade goes through. I expect to see both the Patriots and the Chargers in the NFL playoffs this year. If the Chargers meet the Patriots in the playoffs I won't miss Seymour that's for sure. Dude is a great player.

 

[pao]

I have to ask: why do you care about any of this?

Why do you ask?